Criminal Law – Distribution of Students’ Personal Information – Prohibition
HB 566 creates a new criminal offense in Maryland law for intentionally distributing the personal identifying information or images of certain students without permission when the distributor knows, intends, or recklessly disregards that the material will be used to harm the student. The bill applies to students enrolled in secondary schools and postsecondary institutions, and it defines “personal identifying information” broadly to include items such as names, addresses, phone numbers, government ID numbers, financial account information, biometric data, and school addresses.
The bill includes several exceptions intended to preserve ordinary and protected disclosures. It does not apply to press activity, including student journalism, when engaged in newsgathering or reporting on matters of public concern; legitimate academic, research, or educational activities; disclosures required or authorized by law, institutional policy, or lawful campus safety purposes; or disclosures to campus police, public safety officers, Title IX coordinators, or other authorized officials for legitimate safety or compliance purposes. A violation is a misdemeanor punishable by up to one year in jail, a fine of up to $5,000, or both, and the act would take effect October 1, 2026.
HB 566 would add a new section to the Criminal Law Article, creating a student-information privacy offense that expands potential criminal liability for doxxing-like conduct involving secondary and postsecondary students. It would affect individuals who publish or share student personal data or images with harmful intent, while also carving out protected speech and institutional safety disclosures. The bill would not directly regulate school discipline or data systems, but it would create a new criminal enforcement tool for harmful dissemination of student information.
Based on the bill text and the absence of recorded committee testimony or votes, the measure appears to be framed as a student-safety and privacy protection bill with clear First Amendment safeguards built in. The inclusion of multiple exceptions for journalism, academic work, and lawful safety disclosures suggests an effort to balance privacy concerns with free-speech and campus-operations interests. No voting history or transcript evidence indicates organized support or opposition in the available record.
The main point of contention is likely the scope of the prohibition and whether it could chill speech, journalism, or advocacy involving student conduct or campus issues. The bill anticipates these concerns by excluding legitimate press activity, academic and educational uses, and legally authorized disclosures, and by stating it may not be applied in a way that violates free-speech or press rights. Another possible area of debate is the breadth of the definition of personal identifying information and the mental state standard, which reaches reckless disregard as well as intentional harmful use.